Right now, I think the above is the most interesting comparison for new system builders. The former is a little cheaper, the latter may well be faster, but enough to justify the price difference?

The problem is that it's difficult to find these two processors in a head-to-head with several relevant apps. I found a couple sites that list a Cinebench comparison, and the 3930K performed a decent amount better. But I'd love to see more video and audio benchmarks of these two processors at stock speeds. If anyone comes across a site that has done such testing, please post.

I would have assumed you to say that the i7-2600K is faster than the i7-990X by now and also faster than the i7-3930K and just about equal to the 3960X, in fact I expected you to say the i7-2600K is the 'King of Performance' and everybody else is plain wrong.

And that number of PCIe lanes is completely irrelevant as are the number of DIMM slots. And there is no performance gain to be expected from the move from PCIe-2.0 to PCIe-3.0. Maybe you will confirm that.

Still, the potential is available in LGA 2011 for those who are willing to spend a lot of money on additional components. If, for example, someone building or configuring a system is sticking with three or four hard drives and will not be using a discrete RAID card, then LGA 2011 would be a waste of money. And the fastest current GPUs barely take full advantage of even PCI-e 2.0 x8, let alone x16. By that same token, someone with an i7-3930K or an i7-3960X should get at least a GTX 570 to remain balanced; otherwise, that platform will be limited by the GPU.

So, going back to my statement in another thread:

It is downright silly to go heavy on the GPU and light on the CPU. The converse also holds true, in this case: It is also downright silly to go heavy on the CPU but light on the GPU or disks. In other words, the more expensive platform really needs astronomically expensive components in order for it to achieve a worthwhile performance increase over a system based on a less expensive platform. Otherwise, a super-expensive CPU and motherboard equipped with a low- to mid-range GPU and a relatively simple drive subsystem would be a total waste of money.

will not be using a discrete RAID card, then LGA 2011 would be a waste of money.

Well, that's what I'm trying to determine, but with actual benchmarks. Yes, the 3930 is the more expensive option, but it's about 20% faster in the Cinebench multithread test. That may well be worth the extra money for quite a few folks even if they don't need the extra lanes, assuming that lead holds up (or is bettered) in other video and audio apps.

As I stated, the potential is there in that platform for those who are willing to spend more than $5-6K on the rest of the system just to keep things in balance. And my previous PPBM5 tests with an i7-950 overclocked to 4GHz and an i7-2600K overclocked to only 3.8GHz proved that without a discrete RAID controller card, the additional capabilities of the more expensive platform are almost totally wasted: The 950 @ 4.0 GHz failed to outperform the 2600K @ 3.8 GHz when both systems were equipped with the same GTX 470 and the same two pairs of 7200 RPM 1TB disks in RAID 0 (which Harm calls "aid0").

On the other hand, the X79 has a completely different onboard SATA RAID controller than the X58. So, maybe, things might improve on that platform for those who cannot afford a decent RAID system. In fact, ADK's PPBM5 testing bears this out: An i7-2600K with 16GB of RAM (the maximum cost-effective RAM amount for that platform), even overclocked to 4.6GHz, cannot achieve any faster overall results than a totally stock-speed i7-3960X with 32GB of RAM (the maximum cost-effective amount for X79 with eight DIMM slots) when both systems are running CS5.5. And ADK's overclocked results clearly show just how limited four hard disks in two aid0 arrays really are in terms of performance. The X79's onboard RAID might perform better in a four-disk RAID 5 configuration than previous Intel ICH/PCH implementations did in RAID 5 mode.

will not be using a discrete RAID card, then LGA 2011 would be a waste of money.

Well, that's what I'm trying to determine, but with actual benchmarks. Yes, the 3930 is the more expensive option, but it's about 20% faster in the Cinebench multithread test. That may well be worth the extra money for quite a few folks even if they don't need the extra lanes, assuming that lead holds up (or is bettered) in other video and audio apps.

So...anyone seen those benchmarks?

HI Jim,

cinebech should be retired its a useless test that rarely show true in real world tests including those softwares used in it..

the same test that shows Quadros in a better light than GTX xxx.. surely you wont debate that one?

i wil have Eric run the default speed on the 3930k, just curious why dont you do an OC? you read these forums you know the benefits of an OCed processor...

Thanks, dude. Any chance I can get you guys to do the same with a stock speed 2700K?

just curious why dont you do an OC?

Not saying I won't. I just like to eliminate variables in benchmarks. Always start with stock speeds, then add the overclocking tests if you wish. But they're an option, the stock speeds are the standard.

That's what I'm trying to get at. Is that $400 worth it, even if you don't need the extra PCI-E lanes? Is the E fast enough to justify that extra $400. In the end, that will be a personal decision. But it's a decision that should be based on direct comparison benchmarks.

and again Harm Most users do not need a large raid array (unless they want redundacy) and even that should be backed up...

in fact i would say of all the systems we sell, a large raid array is only in 15% of them (guessing but close)

realistically the cost between the 2700k and 3930k is pretty nominal

$300 on the processor and about $100 on the board.

for $400 i know what i would buy. but to some $400 is a breaking point. plus to make it worth it (unless doing animation etc) you have to buy the raid card and 8 enterprise drives

whats funny Harm is YOU dont need the raid array you have... nor do most others.

Actually, even that depends on the workflow. Most consumers (as opposed to professionals and even some prosumers) do not need a large RAID array because the formats that they work with needs a fast CPU but not so much in the way of disk I/O bandwidth. Pros and some prosumers really do need both a fast CPU and high disk I/O throughput (in fact, faster than any three-disk aid0 can provide) because they are working with formats that have both high resolution and high video bandwidth and also because some NLEs automatically convert compressed video to uncompressed RGB and then back at editing level. A two-disk aid0 is hardly sufficient for uncompressed HD work (some NLEs automatically convert compressed HD video to uncompressed at editing level) even if the two disks in that aid0 are the fastest drives currently on the market.

Seriously, along Randall's remarks, try to edit a mix of RED 4K, uncompressed, XF 422 and AVCIntra100 in a multitrack sequence off a 2-disk aid0 and compare that to my raid. No matter how fast your i7-2600K is, and according to you it is about the best, you will still be seriously bottlenecked. Not on your simple AVCHD test sequence, that you often refer to, but a real life project with these sources using 8-12 tracks and around 10 hours of source material and you can imagine an aid0 is seriously underpowered.

Agreed, Harm. Multiple layers of video from sources that are all taxing on disk I/O bandwidth can choke even a four-disk aid0 (meaning four disks all in a single drive letter). And some of those formats even require the fastest of CPUs. And yes, professionals and some prosumers work with that many layers of disk-taxing (and often CPU-taxing) video formats.

With that said, I am tempted to break apart all of my aid0s and run all of the hard drives in my possession as individual, non-aid0 disks...

By the way, I found two results with an i7-2600K (the step below the i7-2700K) running with a top-end Areca RAID card and CS5.5. These results are barely any faster overall than my system with two 2-disk aid0 arrays on the onboard Intel SATA controller; however, those two systems are running RAID 5 (which is almost always slower than RAID 3 due to the additional latencies in accessing distributed parity data) and are equipped with reference GTX 560s (which might have been the biggest bottleneck on those two systems when it comes to HD-to-SD transcoding using MPE GPU acceleration).